Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

samuel4242 writes " Some of the Creative Commons folks wrapped a skin around the Internet Archive to create the P2P-Politics site filled with ads about this election. You've heard of this election, right? It's an interesting spin on the notion of P2P because the ads themselves are cached on the Internet Archives big servers, but email forwards links from P to P. Sort of like passing a pointer instead of the data structure. Some of the ads are thoughtful, some include stars, and some are a bit scary. For some reason, there seem to be very few from the Bush supporters and it's anyone's guess why."

Terror is not an enemy. Terror is the tactic of an enemy. A war on a tactic will, in all likelihood, never end because the object of the war, the tactic, can never be eradicated. This type of war will always be an endless, confusing tragedy.

That is, I fear, what we have in the case of Iraq. We should get the troops out now.

And we have John Kerry just saying he will do the same thing Bush is doing, only "better" and "stron

No, Kerry has made clear that he won't shoehorn Iraq into the "forever war" on Terror. Unlike Bush, Kerry doesn't have the criminally vested interests in oil, Halliburton and neocon apocalypse. Bush will lead us into a draft [enjoythedraft.com] the same way he's led us into a permanent recession, busted budget, and completely divided country: by "accident", somebody else's fault.

Just to indulge the inanity of considering voting for Peroutka: he's running on the "GOD FAMILY REPUBLIC" ticket (his words). Bush isn't zealously ri

It's funny that the whole draft bill was introduced into the senate by democrats, and was completely shot down recently (only 2 people voted for it, and they were the ones who introduced it, go figure.)

So, anything else you want to try and scare college/high school kids with?

Sure: the backdoor draft [nwsource.com], for those naive enough to think that enlisting for a tour will get the chances of being fed into the Iraqmire meat grinder over with quickly. Thanks for the invite. While we're at it, we can note that the Democrats tried to get a draft started before the war, to prevent rich and connected Republicans from avoiding the effects on their families of sending other kids to war for them. Bush's "no draft" plans will turn out to be "misunderstimations" of the failure to recruit, already u [wsj.com]

What you linked to is not a "draft", and it's stupid that they're calling it a "backdoor draft".

When you join the military, it's all right there. You may be required to commit longer than your actual term. If you don't understand or agree with that, then you probably shouldn't be in the military.

Also, if you've joined the military just to get a (nearly) free ride to college, you're probably in it for the wrong reasons as well.

People are calling it a draft because it's involuntary military servitude - they're not parsing the words like some White House lawyer [americanprogress.org]. Even people who are drafted signed agreements to comply with the Selective Service system - and involuntary service isn't voluntary, even though you signed up for it. Not enough are serving [wsj.com] to support Bush's chosen war in Iraq. And what happens when a nondiscretionary demand for our troops comes up?

I understand that Kerry is better than Bush on the war. Which is why I am voting for him if my state is close.I would not vote for Peroutka regardless, I disagree with him on too much. I don't think he's completly insane, he's just VERY conservative. I personally put foreign policy pretty high on my list of prioreties, so to me he isn't the absolute worst candidate. While I am an atheist and am uncomfortable with some of his religious platforms, I would honestly prefer him to Bush.

Bush is scarier because he could win. That's scary not only because of the seriousness of the threat, but scary because tens of millions of Americans will vote for him. Hitler was almost elected Chancellor, by millions of Germans, then appointed by the ancient ruler. We're not that different now, just a somewhat different roster of scapegoats. BTW, don't let any bunch of nerds fool you into shutting off your brain by invoking some "Godwin's Law" claptrap: Hitler was a real person, not a mythological demon,

He's a troll. A troll 'for' the left. I think he despises Bush as much as I do, but has adopted the tactic of pretending to speak for the Bush side in as offensive a manner as possible in an effort to discredit them. To each their own, I suppose.

I'd like to think that this administration's record speaks quite adequately to their inadequacy, but seeing as how almost half of us intend to vote for these assclowns, perhaps not.

As a result of your ability to grasp basic logic, and then accusing others of same, your posting priveleges and breathing rights have been revoked. Continuation of such is in violation of L-4678-B, often known as Catch 22. Have a nice rest of your life.

The coward is correct about Peroutka [peroutka2004.com]. I was going to say that I would give Bush four more terms before letting this nutjob take the helm, but then I realized that the moment he took office, everyone would stop taking the presidency seriously. Having a complete loon occupying the White House would just be harmless entertainment.

If you see any difference between the two candidates at all, and you're in a close state, you should vote for the lesser evil, not the guy-you-really-want-but-doesn't-have-a-s

You might not like Kerry, but you can hardly fault his intelligence. How can you back that up? Then again, if you're voting for someone who is only a spoiler for Kerry, and therefore tacitly reelecting Bush, maybe you're not so smart yourself. The smart person who rejects Bush and Kerry votes for Kerry, because he's not destroying the country, and donates time and money to a third party. So next time the party can increase its chances not only of winning, but of breaking the party duopoly. Just voting for t

That's a fairly sophisticated playground technique you've nurtured. One twit says something stupid equating the intellects of a moron president and a brainy challenger, I ask for backup, and you reduce the equation to they are beans! By quoting us as if we were all children, not just you and the twit. That must get you beat up a lot, smarty pants.

I double checked your quote, and I was right the first time: you're all pissed because someone is equating the intelligence of a skull-n-bones yalie to a skull-n-bones yalie. I didn't reduce the equation to beans, the ORIGINAL post did that!

You changed the equation from "smart as" to "is". That's stupid. Almost as stupid as pretending you didn't. And stupider than changing "beans" to "skull and bones yalies". Almost as stupid as equating their college status to their intelligence, not nearly as stupid as calling Kerry stupid. Please don't bother replying; I don't want to have

Those guys are doing the best TV since the Original Not Ready for Primetime Players. Thanks for the reference; how well do you think"the facts are clearly biased against George Bush" - a la _The Daily Show_ maintains their implicit GPL;)?

Thinking about the presidential campaign has caused me to discover something I didn't know before. Most people have little idea of the activities of their government. Instead, they believe the sound bites.

TV and relative wealth lets us believe that politics is for "experts" who "know best" and have the "public trust". Since our country was founded on opposite principles of participation and distrust, the ease of that path is seductive, until it comes home to roost. By then, it's too late, as the media has moved to serve the powers that be: the government that controls their profits, and vice versa. That corporate/government mutual perpetuation was called "fascism" by its Italian founders, and it hasn't chang

I found Jesus, would rather vote for Bush than Kerry (Although I see Peroutka and Badnarik as better choices and will vote for one of them), and use the Internet. Know at least a hundred people like that too.

There's a hilarious Mad Magazine spoof of the Bush campaign and how it might treat Jesus Christ.
http://www.dailykos.com/images/user/3/jesusbush.jp g [dailykos.com]
However, it does a good job of raising a serious issue, though: Bush talks like a Christian, but he doesn't act according to Christian values. Humility? Charity? Turning the other cheek? Compassion? Love of your fellow man? Hardly.

Funny, people only use the most popular verses (which are usually taken out of context anyway) to support claims to not being Christian-like. The Bible says turn the other cheek, and America's turned cheeks plenty of times when a few Americans died here and a few there, but I think we have run out and we needed to attack terrorism.

This email/WWW wrapper is exactly what the email MIME header "Content-disposition:" is for. You send me a message, including "Content-disposition: " including some state arguments describing the object that the URL points to. When I read (not just receive) the message, my email reader gets the object at the URL, subject to my preferences, including "retrieve on receive". If your URL points to coral or some other web cache, or your proxy caches URLs for your entire organization, the URL persists, or your ema

It could, if you automatically retrieved all URLs. But it's the same as HTML email: the default is "off", and senders are matched against your contacts list. The strength of C-d is *not* downloading the URL, unless confirmed by the reading user.